FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

March 23, 2009

TENTH CIRCUIT

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

LLOYD NEIL POPE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

No. 08-6180
Western District of Oklahoma

DAVID C. MILLER, Warden; FLOYD

FRY, Law Library Supervisor;
MICHAEL MEADE, Sergeant;
HANCOCK, Food Supervisor;
MELISSA HALVERSON, Medical
Director; EDWIN CARNS, M.D.;
UNDERWOOD, Unit Manager,

(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-01333-F)

Respondents-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Lloyd Pope, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983
complaint against various prison officials and employees claiming that the
conditions of his confinement violate his constitutional rights. Among other

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is
therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

things, he claimed that he was denied medical treatment, given substandard food,
and denied access to the prison law library. He sought damages as well as
release. The magistrate judge issued two supplemental reports that recommended
dismissal of some of Mr. Popes claims and a grant of summary judgment to the
defendants on the rest. After considering Mr. Popes objections to each report,
the district court entered separate orders agreeing with the recommendations of
the magistrate judge, and entered judgment for the defendants. Mr. Pope
appealed. We affirm.
Discussion
Mr. Pope essentially repeats the claims he made below without responding
to the substance of the magistrate judges recommendations or the district courts
orders. He claims he is being denied access to the legal library and law books.
The magistrate judge noted that there is no abstract right of access to a law
library, absent the allegation of some actual injury in pursuing a claimwhich
Mr. Pope has not provided. Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 5. Mr. Pope also makes claims
about his prison conditions, in particular the food he is served, and he also alleges
an institutional shakedown. But the magistrate judge found that Mr. Pope had
not exhausted his administrative remedies, or at least that he had not presented
sufficient evidence that he had. Second Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 811. Mr. Pope
does not make any attempt to show that this finding was in error.
Mr. Pope also now moves for sanctions against the defendant(s) for
2

retaliating against the Plaintiff when asking for pens and/or copies. But Mr.
Pope does not allege any actual injury. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532
n.4 (9th Cir. 1985) (bare allegations of arbitrary retaliation are not enough by
themselves . . . to avoid dismissal.) In any event, an appeal is not the proper
occasion for bringing new claims. Accordingly, we deny the motion.
Conclusion
We AFFIRM the district courts judgment. We DENY Mr. Popes motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, and remind Mr. Pope that he is responsible for the
immediate payment of any unpaid balance of his appellate fees.
Entered for the Court,

Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge